Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-10 17:07:00
|
[moving this thread to the develop list] I went to the aufs web site and I can't even find a tarball to download. The only way I can find to download the source is to check out from cvs. Does anyone know of a easier way to download aufs? UnionFS has tarballs for all the latest kernels, including the RC kernels. That method would much easier to maintain in DL. - BS > >>> both unionfs and aufs are std in Debian if you've got a deb desktop. > >> What's the difference between unionfs & aufs? Does DL have aufs? > >> Which one should we use for this? > > > > I don't know what the difference is. Aufs is not in DL right now. > > If aufs is really more stable and maybe better maintained, then we > > should go for that one. > > I don't know either. The aufs people understandably advocate their offering > enthusiastically. See below. > > However I use Debian sid amd64 and I've not had unionfs working for a long while > for one reason or another whereas aufs worked first time out of the box so I'm > favourably disposed towards it. > > Aufs claim their offering is smaller lighter, more reliable and better featured. > Since we're only going to use a basic part of the functionality I doubt it > will make much difference. > > > We also need to choose wisely, so we don't have to wait for a patch > > for a new kernel for a couple of months. > > unionfs says it is in Andrew Mortons patches but I think that's as near either > are to being included in the kernel. > > Dick > > Why to use AuFS instead of unionfs: > ----------------------------------- > > I am an AuFS user for a long time and what I really appreciate > (from the user's point of view) is the following: > > # AuFS supports writable branch balancing. That means, you can setup several > partitions for writing and AuFS will split all new/modified files between them, > based on free disk space, existence of parent directory, randomly, or combinations. > > > # AuFS supports huge amount of branches. I'm currently using hundreds of > branches without just a small slowdown (which is obvious). > > > # AuFS provides a list of branches through /sys, which doesn't have the > limitation like /proc/mounts. For that reason, it works correctly even with > thousand of branches (while so much branches would break /proc/mounts at all). > > > # AuFS implements 'rr' branch mode, it means 'really-readonly'. This is really > useful, particularly for ISO images or SquashFS filesystems as a brach, as AuFS > doesn't need to re-lookup those filesystems. (You know, a readonly branch 'ro' > can be modified from another place, eg. network, so there can occur a 'direct > branch access' even for read-only directories and AuFS handles it correctly.) > > > # last, but not the least, AuFS is really stable in real world situations. I > used unionfs in the past, but my second name for it was 'NULL POINTER > DEREFERENCE'. I can see those errors still happening in latest unionfs as well, > last one I've found is from 27th of May 2008 ... BUG: unable to handle kernel > NULL pointer dereference. ... I have absolutely no idea what that means, but the > same errors keep appearing in unionfs for years. You won't see anything like > that in AuFS. Guess why knoppix and other projects switched to it :) > > Tomas M > slax.org |
|
From: Dick M. <di...@fo...> - 2008-04-10 17:11:06
|
Bruce Smith wrote: > [moving this thread to the develop list] > > I went to the aufs web site and I can't even find a tarball to download. > The only way I can find to download the source is to check out from cvs. > Does anyone know of a easier way to download aufs? > > UnionFS has tarballs for all the latest kernels, including the RC > kernels. That method would much easier to maintain in DL. I found this from 22-Mar-08: > > Abrao_Ferreira: > >> Where i can download a package of au-FS project? The last version = > >> package with extension [.tar.gz] or [.tar.bz2]=20 > >> I have a link but this give me many files. I need only the source > >> in > >> = > >> a package to compile.=20 > > > > I don't create a tarball. > > If you read http://aufs.sf.net, you would know you should get the source > > files via CVS. > > > > > > Junjiro Okajima So be it! Could it be got from Debian? Dick |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-10 17:17:06
|
> Could it be got from Debian? Maybe http://packages.debian.org/sid/aufs-source ? - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <br...@ar...> - 2008-04-11 14:09:01
|
> > I don't know what the difference is. Aufs is not in DL right now. > > If aufs is really more stable and maybe better maintained, then we > > should go for that one. > > I don't know either. The aufs people understandably advocate their offering > enthusiastically. See below. I haven't tried aufs, but it appears to function similar to unionfs? If so, here is my plan (feel free to shoot holes in it): Since UnionFS is already working in DL, I want to first get this working with unionfs and prove the concept that it will function as planned. Once we've proved it works with UnionFS, we can [try to] add aufs to DL. Since they function similar then it should be easy to switch between UnionFS and aufs. Right??? Maybe we could make a menuconfig option to select which FS to use. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-11 14:14:08
|
Quoting Bruce Smith <br...@ar...>: >> > I don't know what the difference is. Aufs is not in DL right now. >> > If aufs is really more stable and maybe better maintained, then we >> > should go for that one. >> >> I don't know either. The aufs people understandably advocate their offering >> enthusiastically. See below. > > I haven't tried aufs, but it appears to function similar to unionfs? > > If so, here is my plan (feel free to shoot holes in it): > > Since UnionFS is already working in DL, I want to first get this working > with unionfs and prove the concept that it will function as planned. > > Once we've proved it works with UnionFS, we can [try to] add aufs to DL. > Since they function similar then it should be easy to switch between > UnionFS and aufs. Right??? > > Maybe we could make a menuconfig option to select which FS to use. Sounds like a good plan to me. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-11 14:27:18
|
> > Since UnionFS is already working in DL, I want to first get this working > > with unionfs and prove the concept that it will function as planned. > > > > Once we've proved it works with UnionFS, we can [try to] add aufs to DL. > > Since they function similar then it should be easy to switch between > > UnionFS and aufs. Right??? > > > > Maybe we could make a menuconfig option to select which FS to use. > > Sounds like a good plan to me. Is the fact that aufs is only in cvs, no tarballs available, going to be a problem? It's fairly simple to check out aufs from cvs and make our own tarball. I tried it yesterday, and the whole thing is only 1.8M. ...../aufs.wcvs$ du -sh . 1.8M . One nice thing is it's primarily a kernel module, and kernel patches may not be necessary. There are some optional kernel patches, which may be required depending on what kernel options are selected. I haven't checked it against our kernel options yet. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-11 15:07:21
|
Quoting Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...>: >> > Since UnionFS is already working in DL, I want to first get this working >> > with unionfs and prove the concept that it will function as planned. >> > >> > Once we've proved it works with UnionFS, we can [try to] add aufs to DL. >> > Since they function similar then it should be easy to switch between >> > UnionFS and aufs. Right??? >> > >> > Maybe we could make a menuconfig option to select which FS to use. >> >> Sounds like a good plan to me. > > Is the fact that aufs is only in cvs, no tarballs available, going to be > a problem? The is a benefit and downside. Benefit: We would always get the latest code. Downside: We would always get the latest code. If he's currently working on something and about half of it is checked in, we get code which won't work. > It's fairly simple to check out aufs from cvs and make our own tarball. > I tried it yesterday, and the whole thing is only 1.8M. > > ...../aufs.wcvs$ du -sh . > 1.8M . > > One nice thing is it's primarily a kernel module, and kernel patches may > not be necessary. There are some optional kernel patches, which may be > required depending on what kernel options are selected. I haven't > checked it against our kernel options yet. This may be a good thing. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-11 15:35:58
|
> > Is the fact that aufs is only in cvs, no tarballs available, going to be > > a problem? > > The is a benefit and downside. > Benefit: We would always get the latest code. > Downside: We would always get the latest code. > > If he's currently working on something and about half of it is checked > in, we get code which won't work. Hopefully that won't be a problem. Quote from the web site: "Usually I am updating CVS tree on every Monday. I always try putting the stable version in CVS," > > One nice thing is it's primarily a kernel module, and kernel patches may > > not be necessary. There are some optional kernel patches, which may be > > required depending on what kernel options are selected. I haven't > > checked it against our kernel options yet. > > This may be a good thing. Yes, there is less to go wrong if there aren't any kernel patches. - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <br...@ar...> - 2008-04-12 02:40:09
|
>> Since UnionFS is already working in DL, I want to first get this working >> with unionfs and prove the concept that it will function as planned. >> >> Once we've proved it works with UnionFS, we can [try to] add aufs to DL. >> Since they function similar then it should be easy to switch between >> UnionFS and aufs. Right??? >> >> Maybe we could make a menuconfig option to select which FS to use. >> > > Sounds like a good plan to me. > I've proved the concept. I have a working ISO that runs with UnionFS mounted /etc. It boots with blank media. save-config saves only the changes. Changes load next boot, etc. There is more stuff to do. I haven't started working on the automated upgrade to a new version yet. And there is probably some code cleanup to do. Should I check in what I've done so far? Or should I wait until the upgrade process is working? Since this is such a major change, should I increase the version number from 1.3.4 to 1.3.5 (or something) when I check in the changes? If so, remind me where to change the version? BTW, I have a busy weekend, so I may not get a chance to work on it again until next week. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-12 06:33:30
|
Quoting Bruce Smith <br...@ar...>: > >>> Since UnionFS is already working in DL, I want to first get this working >>> with unionfs and prove the concept that it will function as planned. >>> >>> Once we've proved it works with UnionFS, we can [try to] add aufs to DL. >>> Since they function similar then it should be easy to switch between >>> UnionFS and aufs. Right??? >>> >>> Maybe we could make a menuconfig option to select which FS to use. >>> >> >> Sounds like a good plan to me. >> > > I've proved the concept. I have a working ISO that runs with UnionFS > mounted /etc. > > It boots with blank media. save-config saves only the changes. Changes > load next boot, etc. > > There is more stuff to do. I haven't started working on the automated > upgrade to a new version yet. And there is probably some code cleanup > to do. > > Should I check in what I've done so far? Or should I wait until the > upgrade process is working? I'd say wait, since nobody will really be able to use it until then. > Since this is such a major change, should I increase the version number > from 1.3.4 to 1.3.5 (or something) when I check in the changes? If so, > remind me where to change the version? yes please scripts/config/version or something like that > BTW, I have a busy weekend, so I may not get a chance to work on it > again until next week. Yeah same here, I'm actually at work right now upgrading systems.... -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-16 13:32:14
|
What's the deal with "scripts/build-etc" ? I was grep'ing for "etc.tar.bz2" in the scripts directory, and build-etc appears. Then I grep for build-etc, and nothing seems to run or reference it. Is it an obsolete file? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-17 12:38:03
|
Quoting Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...>: > What's the deal with "scripts/build-etc" ? > > I was grep'ing for "etc.tar.bz2" in the scripts directory, and build-etc > appears. Then I grep for build-etc, and nothing seems to run or > reference it. Is it an obsolete file? No idea, must be some leftover from the good old days... Whack it. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
